A problem with the rules, and a simple fix

[TheMouse]

The problem is the integration of difficulty modifiers with contested rolls.

The way it works now is simple enough. As per page 193, contested rolls are you rolling something and someone else rolling their thing, then you compare. Higher roll wins. Very simple.

We all know about fate points and Aspects and how those modify rolls. This isn't part of the problem, so it doesn't matter in this topic. This is because in contested rolls it modifies the roll, not the difficulty. So the math works out just fine.

Now, we have non-fate-point-driven modifiers. The rules for these start on 311. This section is a little hand-wavy, but it comes down to this: When factors are against you, the difficulty goes up, typically in units of +2. In a rush? +2 difficulty. Lacking some equipment? +2 difficulty. Very simple, again.

Now comes the problem. Turn to page 142 and check out the Stealth trapping Hiding. In a few words, it lays out the rules for hiding in a situation with difficulty modifiers from page 311. In short, you set the difficulty to hide, then your roll becomes the difficulty to spot you.

Why is this a problem? Well, low difficulties mean that low rolls can be successful. But that means that it's easier to spot you, because you rolled low. So your successful rolls, being lower, mean it's actually easier to spot you than if you'd rolled a barely successful roll against a higher difficulty.

For example, if the difficulty to hide is +0 and you rolled +2, it's easier to spot you than if the difficulty had been +2 and you'd rolled +3. Never mind that you've got 2 Shifts on the lower difficulty. You're easier to spot by 1.

This bugs me.

So I've come up with two simple ways to resolve this:

1. Modifiers to the difficulty during contests are multiplied by -1 and applied as a modifier to your roll. So a -2 to your difficulty (making it easier by 2) instead gets applied as a +2 to your roll (making it easier by 2). Likewise, a modifier of +2 to the difficulty (making it harder by 2) gets applied as a -2 to your roll (making it harder by 2).

2. Compare Shifts in contested rolls rather than the rolls themselves. If you beat your difficulty by 3 and the other dude beat his by 2, it doesn't matter that his roll is higher, because you have more Shifts. So you win.

They both accomplish pretty much the same thing: People can make contested rolls against different difficulties, and the degree to which you succeed matters. The first one sets all difficulties to the same baseline and the second counts degrees of success. These are more or less the same thing.

Thoughts?

[Todjaeger]

I need to sit down and re-read the specific pages you reference, but the first thought which comes to mind is that a contested roll (at least the way I run it) is typically directly contested, not against a difficulty which is then contested.

Basically in the case of a contested Stealth/Alertness roll, if someone is trying to Hide, they roll their 4dF, modified by any applicable Scene Aspects, and possibly using character and temporary Aspects as well and then add their Stealth skill, which is then opposed by the contesting person/things 4dF roll plus their Alertness skill, and the modified by any relevant Aspects they wish to use.

The idea of a skill roll against a Difficulty to hide successfully, which is then opposed, basically gives the person hiding/attempting to hide two chances to fail the same action.  Either I', not doing something according to RAW, or you're reading something in the RAW which doesn't make sense (at least to me).

Now, which could make some sense (and again, I'd need to re-read the relevant pages) would be a Stealth check vs. a difficulty to hide, with success giving the person attempting to hide temporary Aspects they can use to their advantage during the actual opposed Stealth/Alertness test.

-Cheers

[TheMouse]

I need to sit down and re-read the specific pages you reference, but the first thought which comes to mind is that a contested roll (at least the way I run it) is typically directly contested, not against a difficulty which is then contested.

Most contested rolls are straight up. But they don't have to be that way.

Difficulty modifiers to contested rolls exist. I gave the page numbers. 142 is where it says outright that it can happen, and the section is really short.

Basically in the case of a contested Stealth/Alertness roll, if someone is trying to Hide, they roll their 4dF, modified by any applicable Scene Aspects, and possibly using character and temporary Aspects as well and then add their Stealth skill, which is then opposed by the contesting person/things 4dF roll plus their Alertness skill, and the modified by any relevant Aspects they wish to use.

As I said, I'm avoiding Aspects. I love Aspects, but they're not the solution to everything. So stuff that isn't Aspect driven needs a buff, IMO.

And this resolves numerous problems that people often have with Fate. How many times have you heard, "So, wait. If my guy is trying to sneak down the hallway past a mook, and the hallways is really bright, it's no more difficult than if the hallway was dark?" The answer given is usually that the GM should Compel the scene-Aspect to make it so the PC can't sneak... which works, but it doesn't actually address the issue of making a roll any harder, because Compels don't do that.

The idea of a skill roll against a Difficulty to hide successfully, which is then opposed, basically gives the person hiding/attempting to hide two chances to fail the same action.  Either I', not doing something according to RAW, or you're reading something in the RAW which doesn't make sense (at least to me).

It's rules as written. Check out 142. You roll against a difficulty, then the other guy rolls against your roll. It's very simple, and it creates the problem that bothers me.

Now, which could make some sense (and again, I'd need to re-read the relevant pages) would be a Stealth check vs. a difficulty to hide, with success giving the person attempting to hide temporary Aspects they can use to their advantage during the actual opposed Stealth/Alertness test.

Two things:

1. There's more to the game than Aspects. Trying to resolve everything with Aspects creates lots of problems. I've spent a huge chunk of time trying to resolve these problems for other people, and just doing it the way I list in the OP resolves most of those problems without making it complicated.

2. Rolling to get a bonus to your roll is super awkward. It's also two actions, so you can't actually do it at the same time. You need to Maneuver, hope that the guy you're hiding from doesn't look for you, then roll to actually hide. This is more than a little problematic.

[Haru]

I don't think it has to be made that complicated. Just let the guy roll his stealth without any modifiers when he tries to hide, or outright deny it (maybe granting a fate point in the process). If there are aspects that would make hiding more difficult, let the other guy tag them on his alertness/investigation roll, when trying to find the hidden guy. That way, you only need to worry about those modifiers, when they actually come into play and not calculate any difficulties. If there are aspects that benefit and aspects that hinder someone hiding, both characters could tag them alternately, if need be, to stay ahead of the other.

[TheMouse]

I don't think it has to be made that complicated. Just let the guy roll his stealth without any modifiers when he tries to hide, or outright deny it (maybe granting a fate point in the process). If there are aspects that would make hiding more difficult, let the other guy tag them on his alertness/investigation roll, when trying to find the hidden guy. That way, you only need to worry about those modifiers, when they actually come into play and not calculate any difficulties. If there are aspects that benefit and aspects that hinder someone hiding, both characters could tag them alternately, if need be, to stay ahead of the other.

You seem to have completely missed the point of this thread. I can tell this because you say things like, "Without any modifiers," and, "If there are aspects that would make hiding more difficult, let the other guy tag them."

Now look at the OP. It says that Aspects aren't part of this topic, and it says that it's about modifiers that come from non-fate-point sources.

In a thread about not-Aspects and modifiers, your solution is Aspects and not-modifiers. Which is to say, your solution isn't in fact a solution and is totally off topic.

[newtinmpls]

"We all know about fate points and Aspects and how those modify rolls. This isn't part of the problem, so it doesn't matter in this topic."

Doesn't make sense to me. If something is not part of the problem, it can still add to a functional solution.

Granted, if for some reason a particular DM doesn't want to use fate points or Aspects to address a particular thing, then s/he goes with what seems right.

[Haru]

You seem to have completely missed the point of this thread. I can tell this because you say things like, "Without any modifiers," and, "If there are aspects that would make hiding more difficult, let the other guy tag them."

Now look at the OP. It says that Aspects aren't part of this topic, and it says that it's about modifiers that come from non-fate-point sources.

In a thread about not-Aspects and modifiers, your solution is Aspects and not-modifiers. Which is to say, your solution isn't in fact a solution and is totally off topic.

I like to treat everything as aspects, including those modifiers, which makes sense, because most modifiers are in fact the "+2" you get for invoking an aspect. Aspects are THE central idea of the game, so discussing a problem in the rules without considering them is kind of like trying to run a car without gas. The fate system tries to get rid of those usual modifiers. Yes, there is a chapter in the book, that deals with them, but to me that seems more like an effort to make the transition from other RPG games easier. 

I just think it benefits the game, when you don't take 5 minutes to way all the modifiers against each other to reach a difficulty number for the player to roll. If you go the "all aspect" route, you don't have to, because those modifiers will only come into play, if they are actually part of the narrative.

So no, I don't think I am off topic, and yes, I think it is a solution. It might be a solution you don't like, but it is how I would do things.

[Sanctaphrax]

This seems like a good solution to a problem I've never had.

If I ever do have that problem, I suppose I'll use one of the methods here to solve it.

[TheMouse]

So no, I don't think I am off topic, and yes, I think it is a solution. It might be a solution you don't like, but it is how I would do things.

No, it's not a solution. It doesn't address the problem. It avoids it. Let me put illustrate this with an analogy.

Me: There are two doors on my house. The front one works fine, but the back one slams really loudly. I'd like to fix the way the back door slams.

You: Just use the front door. It works fine.

Me: That's not a solution.

You: Yes it is. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a solution.

Not using the back door doesn't actually solve the problem that the door slams loudly. It just avoids using the back door. What if I park the car around the back instead of the front? Am I supposed to walk around to the front if I'm carrying something heavy? Or am I supposed to put up with the slamming back door? Why not just fix the spring so that it doesn't slam in the first place?

That's pretty much what's going on. I want to fix how difficulty modifiers work. You're telling me to fix them by not using them. That's not a fix. It's evasion. I want to actually fix the problem, not avoid it.

[Haru]

Not using the back door doesn't actually solve the problem that the door slams loudly. It just avoids using the back door. What if I park the car around the back instead of the front? Am I supposed to walk around to the front if I'm carrying something heavy? Or am I supposed to put up with the slamming back door? Why not just fix the spring so that it doesn't slam in the first place?

That's assuming there is a back door. To stay in the metaphor, I would see the back door you want to use more like trying to get in through a window and complaining, that it is too difficult.

1. Modifiers to the difficulty during contests are multiplied by -1 and applied as a modifier to your roll. So a -2 to your difficulty (making it easier by 2) instead gets applied as a +2 to your roll (making it easier by 2). Likewise, a modifier of +2 to the difficulty (making it harder by 2) gets applied as a -2 to your roll (making it harder by 2).

I think we pretty much mean the same thing, we only apply it differently. First, are we in agreement, that ever difficulty modifier can be represented by an aspect? That would be the most important thing, if we don't agree on that, we won't agree on anything.

If you apply a negative modifier on a contested roll, you could instead apply a positive modifier on the other guy, the difference in shifts would be the same, so your situational modifiers and my tagged aspects are in fact pretty much the same.

I just think it makes the game more interesting, if you don't have to factor in every aspect or modifier like you would do in any other game, but use them when they actually come up. In the case of hiding, you don't hide from the environment, you hide from someone looking for you, so that's where the focus should be. I agree, that the hiding rules as written are strange, but that does not change the fact, that I don't like using modifiers in this game. I would let people roll their skills and if there is need for modifiers, I'll take aspects. If there is no need, well... there is no need.

I am not saying your way of doing things is wrong, far from it, and I apologise if it sounds like it. It just would not be the way I would do things.

[TheMouse]

I think we pretty much mean the same thing, we only apply it differently. First, are we in agreement, that ever difficulty modifier can be represented by an aspect? That would be the most important thing, if we don't agree on that, we won't agree on anything.

We are only sort of in agreement.

See, not all modifiers can be applied well as Aspects. Nor should all modifiers be applied as Aspects. It's an option to do so, certainly, but it is not nor should it be the only option.

Sometimes you need a modifier that isn't tied to an Aspect. These exist explicitly in the game. Running and hiding at the same time? +2 difficulty. It says so right there on page 312. And that's NOT using Aspects. It may be mechanically similar to someone Invoking an Aspect to get +2 to a roll, but it's not the same thing; the +2 is applied to a difficulty and not someone's roll, and no one either spends or gets a fate point.

Also, check out the Speed powers. The final power listed under all of them is a penalty negation. Aspects do not apply penalties, so this clearly doesn't involve them.

So, non-Aspect modifiers exist in the rules. They're written in very vaguely, sure. It often requires checking out different sections and sort of gluing them together to get them to work. But they're there.

And here's the key point: People who want to use them aren't somehow doing it wrong. Attempting to move them toward other things when they've said that they want to use these things isn't only counter productive, but it's actively unhelpful.

[noclue]

If the hider knows his roll will become the difficulty to spot him, isn't there incentive enough for him to boost his roll and not be satisfied with a roll that barely succeeds a lower difficulty? It seems like the mechanic is trying to make a routine hiding into something more interesting by encouraging spending Fate on Aspects.

[TheMouse]

It seems like the mechanic is trying to make a routine hiding into something more interesting by encouraging spending Fate on Aspects.

Not everything is an Aspect, and not everything involves fate points. Nor should it.

People, can we just STOP finding other ways to suggest that I just use Aspects? I know Aspects are there. I know how they work.

So, for anyone who thinks that they're being helpful or informative by suggesting yet another time that I just use Aspects, you're not being helpful. You're not being informative. You're repeating stuff that has already been said multiple times on this thread, that I already knew about before I started the thread, and that I hinted you shouldn't bother with in the OP.

You'd rather just use Aspects. Message received. Got it. Check. Understood. Can we pretty please with sugar on top just keep moving past that, preferably in a way that does not involve so much as a single use of the terms "Aspects" or "fate points"?

[Tedronai]

So... what you'd like to do is to compare the shifts of Effect of the two rolls, rather than merely their Effort?
So long as you reliably remember to assign appropriate base difficulties to each side of the opposed roll, (and so long as the rest of the table is on board), I don't particularly see any inherently catastrophic problem with that.
It does have the potential to make the game somewhat more granular than it would otherwise be, but I understand that some gaming groups find that sort of thing desirable.

[TheMouse]

So... what you'd like to do is to compare the shifts of Effect of the two rolls, rather than merely their Effort?

That's the way that involves the least mucking about. The other way is to always modify rolls rather than difficulties. Mathematically, these are basically interchangeable.

So long as you reliably remember to assign appropriate base difficulties to each side of the opposed roll, (and so long as the rest of the table is on board), I don't particularly see any inherently catastrophic problem with that.

I didn't see anything blowing up, either. I just like putting these things out into the world for people to think about, just in case something I wasn't thinking about went kerplewie. (That's the first time I've tried to write down that particular sound effect. Spell check wants nothing to do with it.)

It does have the potential to make the game somewhat more granular than it would otherwise be, but I understand that some gaming groups find that sort of thing desirable.

And that's another reason to put it out there. There are lots of ways to play games. There are lots of ways to put emphasis on what's mechanically important. The more obvious options there are, the more groups have an easy time getting into the game.

This is why, incidentally, I think that Fate games should have a section discussing different ways to use the things the system does well, when to do that, and what effect that would have. So many, "How do I get an Aspect to do Stress because it's a burning building Aspect?" and, "Why isn't it easier to sneak down a dark hallway when I'm out of fate points?" conversations could have been prevented. Because those always suck.